-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
WSJ: Pre-order sales of "Battlefield V" have been weak.
- Thread starter Kalentan
- Start date
Different strokes, different folks. Looks like as of now more are sick of It than not.
That was also said before God of War's release date was announced, so it makes sense they were low at the time. I bet Spider-Man's pre-orders were low before we finally got a date for that too.
We know BFV's date though. There's no more surprised left except to see what the Battle Royale mode looks like. Pre-orders being low is here is just a combination of everything so far.
- right around RDR2's release
- poor trailer right out the gate
- very little marketing all summer for the game
- small closed PC only alphas
- controversy over EA's history with microtransactions
- EA/DICE vs the community who was upset over the customization in the game (devs even telling people, "don't like it, then don't buy it")
Yea if it weren't for DLCs and manufactured hype designed BETAs, the percentage of preorders might be way less in sales.
I think the setting is the least of the problems, unless we want to discuss BFV's take on the WWII setting, opting to go for "lesser known" battles rather than the classics. At least over on some of the Battlefield subreddits like /r/Battlefield_One and /r/BattlefieldV, the whole leadup to the game people have just been stoked to see stuff like D-Day or Battlefield 1942 redone in the Frostbite engine.
But to quote one of my other comments:
I'm more looking forward to Insurgency myself, from what I've seen, BFV is more BF1, which I did not enjoy nearly as much as BF3 and BF4.
It's not. I just imagine that among other factors, the way DICE has chosen to represent WW2 doesn't resonate with a lot of player expectations.
I hope this is sarcasm because that's really Not the reason.
I have bought every battlefield since 1942. This one just looks to samey and I have 0 interest in playing it because there's too many much better games coming from a less shady company.
Assuming its the same across every country (Im in Aus) then yeah. I haven't been charged at all. Back for Battlefield 1 i was simply charged like 24 hours before hand.
This could also be the case. The trailer looked a bit off. But I actually liked it. Still, the fatigue is real for me. I saw this in CoD: WW2. Most boring CoD in years. The games are all so samey. Why not make something that wasn't already made a hundred times before?
Honestly its a packed month, and also BF1 with all its problems at launch burnt my traditional BF group. Then the usual balancing issues, that kind of things. We have moved on.
They are making fairly significant changes to the core game, many of them positive. They did not communicate this at all and still really haven't in any official capacity beyond letting people play the beta. The reveal event was terrible. The reveal terrible was trailer. Devs were rolled out to do interviews and youtubers (!!!) had to fill in the gaps in EA's marketing, making videos about the changes that were coming to the game. Then they again showed basically nothing at E3.
Then the alpha hits and it's not strong. Here we are.
They have fundamentally failed to sell the game beyond "hey it's WW2" and even then it's a particular flavor of WW2 that doesn't appeal to everyone.
I can imagine it's because they've shown nothing but a fake E3 trailer and pissed people off with a live stream.
This holiday is packed, and DICE still haven't shown what makes this particular Battlefield great. Plus they've not said a word about their BR mode, which is a big thing people want.
This holiday is packed, and DICE still haven't shown what makes this particular Battlefield great. Plus they've not said a word about their BR mode, which is a big thing people want.
Fortnight seems more interesting than this and I'm certain that both PUBG and Fortnight existing has sapped the MP FPS player base somewhat.
There's been no real marketing push forst of all, secondly give us an open beta on all platforms well before release. We also need information on their battle royale mode with a highlight trailer at the very least.
I don't understand why none of the above has happened. I definitely have been leaning towards purchasing BF due to the free maps and lack of loot boxes but I'm not going in blind so if someone from DICE / EA is watching give us some communication. It's one of the reasons Epic is praised and also the same reason Bungie has gotten shit from people.
I don't understand why none of the above has happened. I definitely have been leaning towards purchasing BF due to the free maps and lack of loot boxes but I'm not going in blind so if someone from DICE / EA is watching give us some communication. It's one of the reasons Epic is praised and also the same reason Bungie has gotten shit from people.
Not at all. I'm really excited for the game so I'm not speaking for myself. Just theorising why initial first impressions could be tepid. There's obviously a number of reasons, but I don't think that WW2 fatigue is one of them. Would argue that this not being your typical representation of WW2 from the marketing we've seen so far is probably a contributing factor. And when I say that, I'm not talking about the inclusion of women either.
If say, the first trailer had been the tired old D-Day/Omaha beach landing scene done all fancy in Frostbite Engine then reactions would be very different.
Same here. It was had way more character than anything I saw from CoD: WW2. Applaud DICE for taking this approach. I really can't wait for the game, personally.
They employ them and are responsible for what they put out. There's no reason to doubt the veracity of the information.
How relevant these presale numbers ultimately are can be debated.
I'm not doubting any information at all, that was you calling Colin's reputation in to question.
This isn't a WW2 issue. It is purely that the way DICE have thus far chosen to represent the game has not resonated with the Battlefield community. Their first trailer was about as poor a representation of a WW2 Battlefield game as you can possibly imagine.
BF1 marketing was top draw.
This game hasn't as yet generated hype, because its promotion has been abjectly terrible. Battlefield fans want a gritty, semi realistic recreation of big WW2 battles. That is the bottom line. Show us that.
BF1 marketing was top draw.
This game hasn't as yet generated hype, because its promotion has been abjectly terrible. Battlefield fans want a gritty, semi realistic recreation of big WW2 battles. That is the bottom line. Show us that.
And Colin's reputation is what, exactly? Stellar? I don't think so. Are we pretending a twitter personality and an actual journalist have the same amount of oversight? I don't even know what you're arguing.
Weak by battlefield standards no doubt. There is no way a BF game will bomb as hard as Titanfall 2. I don't even think it has to do with the game, but EA's peputation. The battlefront loot boxes really struck a nerve with the average consumer not just hardcore gamers.
Marketing has been indeed poor as many have said.
I pretty much feel like they are getting Youtubers to do all the donkey work.
I'm interested in picking it up as I like what I've seen from the PC alpha but with RDR 2 releasing a week later that's where my money and limited time is going.
I pretty much feel like they are getting Youtubers to do all the donkey work.
I'm interested in picking it up as I like what I've seen from the PC alpha but with RDR 2 releasing a week later that's where my money and limited time is going.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure people prefer the Private Ryan/Band of Brothers type of WWII presentation. Emotional, visceral etc.
DICE's take on WWII "feels" wrong. Too over the top and colorful
To be fair present day and future warfare are just as played out as WWII.
That's a fair point. I forget that GoW's release date was announced so late.
I'm not arguing anything, you are.
I'm excited for the game nonetheless. Dice made some really good decisions (focus on teamplay mechanics, ditching season pass, ammo and health mechanics, tighter gunplay, destruction) and I will definitely buy the game on release. There always will be enough people to play with any way.
Yeah, this is exactly what I'm thinking. Years of very samey WW2 media has set audience expectations for the setting. Hopefully it pays off for them in the end though. Game looks great and will be a nice departure from the relative seriousness of Battlefield 1.
Yet the gameplay mechanics of BFV are more tactical and harder.
BF1 - WW1.
BFV - Why wasn't it Vietnam?! ... like the previous game: Battlefield: Vietnam. Even with the fully articulating prosthetics, clown car cosmetics, and spawning inside vehicles, that would've been an instant Super Duper Deluxe Edition Insta-preorder for me. Simply because of the clever use of V for Vietnam and 5. Also... hueys.
Hell, even if they did, BF2 - WW2, that would be less egregious than BFV - WW2.
BFV - Why wasn't it Vietnam?! ... like the previous game: Battlefield: Vietnam. Even with the fully articulating prosthetics, clown car cosmetics, and spawning inside vehicles, that would've been an instant Super Duper Deluxe Edition Insta-preorder for me. Simply because of the clever use of V for Vietnam and 5. Also... hueys.
Hell, even if they did, BF2 - WW2, that would be less egregious than BFV - WW2.
You brought up Colin's GoW take so you either doubt the WSJ report or you doubt that it matters. Which one do you want to go with?
I only just bought Battlefield 1 and I think I'm gonna burn out before V releases.
I hesitated for a while with BF1 due to the WWI setting even though I've been on Battlefield at launch since the original Bad Company. Battlefield 1 is still a great Battlefield game, but I want the series to return to a modern setting.
I hesitated for a while with BF1 due to the WWI setting even though I've been on Battlefield at launch since the original Bad Company. Battlefield 1 is still a great Battlefield game, but I want the series to return to a modern setting.
You couldn't be more wrong as you very obviously completely missed the point of my original post. I never called anyone's reputation in to question as I don't doubt either report - my point was that weak pre-orders don't necessarily translate in to weak sales of the product following its launch. The only person calling anyone's reputation in to question was you.
70's/80's setting would be great IMO.
They could also make alternative settings: Sci-Fi, Cyberpunk, another Battlefield 2140 with Mechs or whatever. Or Battlefield: Command & Conquer (just imagine that :O ). Just mix it up a bit.
Pre-order data may not be as important today as it is years ago, but it's still a relevant data point and more importantly - the data of pre-order numbers must be viewed with context of where it is compared to other game's pre-order data.
If *popular game X* and *popular game Y*, both of which satisfies similar metrics to BFV ( similar levels of marketing, release window, etc ) have significantly higher pre-order numbers than BFV, then it is worrisome. Poor pre-order data does not suggest a game will fail, but it is important to acknowledge that unless everyone of your competitor is also showing bad pre-order numbers, that means that your poor metrics is an outlier that reflects on the game's noted ability to be more appealing than *insert game with higher pre-orders*
A game which is highly desirable, popular and is exciting the fanbase - will do well on all metrics be it pre-order numbers, retail sales at launch and digital attach rate/numbers at launch too. Retail sales are still sizable enough of a ratio vs digital that there can be growth from the previous release - even at 50% digital.
If *popular game X* and *popular game Y*, both of which satisfies similar metrics to BFV ( similar levels of marketing, release window, etc ) have significantly higher pre-order numbers than BFV, then it is worrisome. Poor pre-order data does not suggest a game will fail, but it is important to acknowledge that unless everyone of your competitor is also showing bad pre-order numbers, that means that your poor metrics is an outlier that reflects on the game's noted ability to be more appealing than *insert game with higher pre-orders*
A game which is highly desirable, popular and is exciting the fanbase - will do well on all metrics be it pre-order numbers, retail sales at launch and digital attach rate/numbers at launch too. Retail sales are still sizable enough of a ratio vs digital that there can be growth from the previous release - even at 50% digital.
There are several reasons for this:
1) No open alpha/beta (and I was actually trying to get a code but still haven't succeeded).
2) The Battlefront microtransactions fiasco left a sour taste with some people
3) It's WW2
4) COD already did WW2 revival last year and people probably got their fill
5) It's not BC3 (or a modern BF4 sequel for that matter).
Should the sales get affected they will obviously blame it on the game having a woman on the cover and female soldiers in the game, plus the prosthetics and the artstyle etc. If they had a pre-order with alpha/beta access then it'd have naturally received a lot of it.
1) No open alpha/beta (and I was actually trying to get a code but still haven't succeeded).
2) The Battlefront microtransactions fiasco left a sour taste with some people
3) It's WW2
4) COD already did WW2 revival last year and people probably got their fill
5) It's not BC3 (or a modern BF4 sequel for that matter).
Should the sales get affected they will obviously blame it on the game having a woman on the cover and female soldiers in the game, plus the prosthetics and the artstyle etc. If they had a pre-order with alpha/beta access then it'd have naturally received a lot of it.